Disposed

Sunil Kumar v. Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Second, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2024/3124/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matter under Article 227, the petitioner prayed for admission of appeal and interim relief. The court declined to interfere at this stage but directed the trial court to decide the pending interim relief application expeditively after hearing parties within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the trial court to consider and decide the application for interim relief on the date fixed or within two weeks thereafter after hearing parties.

Sunil Kumar Vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Second… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52597

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3124 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Second, Lucknow Division, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohiuddin Khan,Mohd. Yasir Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been accepted by the Office of Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.4.

¶7

The petitioner has approached this Court with the limited prayer that an appeal stands admitted before respondent No.1 and the record has also been placed before him on an application seeking interim relief. The same has not been heard nor disposed of.

¶8

It is submitted that private respondent No.3 had initially filed a suit under Section 229B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, which came to be dismissed ex parte. The petitioner, who was the defendant No.1 in the said suit, had filed an appeal, which came to be allowed and the matter was remanded for a decision afresh. Since, the suit was not appropriately decided within the time, accordingly, the petitioner had filed a contempt application and it is the allegation of the petitioner that under the pressure and being displeased that the petitioner filing the contempt, the suit came to be dismissed. However, while dismissing the suit, the SDM vested the property in question in the State.

¶9

It is urged that this order was completely unwarranted. Nevertheless, the petitioner and private respondent No.3 both filed their separate appeals before respondent No.1, which have been clubbed together. The records of the trial court has been summoned. However, in the meantime, the State-respondent has already proceeded to allot the said land to certain persons. Even though, the petitioner had moved an application seeking interim relief, the same has not been considered and it has been urged that in case if no appropriate orders are passed, the basic purpose of filing the appeal shall stand dissuaded. Moreover, it would result in multiplicity of proceedings, which is not desirable.

¶10

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also noticing that the appeal is now listed on 22.8.2024 and the application for interim relief is pending, this Court, at this stage, does not deem appropriate to interfere.

¶11

However, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned to consider and decide the application for interim relief on the date fixed itself after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting unnecessary adjournment and if the same is not possible then within two weeks thereafter.

¶12

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶13

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the court concerned shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law.

¶14

Order Date :- 1.8.2024 Ashutosh

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sunil Kumar v. Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Second, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar v. Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Second, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhagwan Deen and Anr. Vs Shyam Sunder and 6 Ors.

Rajjan Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Indra Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy., Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Smt. Premlata vs Addil. Commissioner Judicial, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and Others

Ramanand vs State of U.P. Thru. Colector/ District Magistrate, Amethi and Others

Jas Karan vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector / District Magistrate, Sultanpur and Others